TLC “Citizen Advocates for Quality Education” The LITERACY COUNCIL a 501 © 3 non-profit organization Charles M. Richardson, B.S., M.S. P.E., Founder & Chairman 1 Jefferson Ferry Dr, Ste. 5152, So. Setauket, NY 11720-4724 l631-650, FAX 2899, [email protected], www.TLC.LI August 29, 2003 Dr. Sally E. Saywitz 333 Cedar St., 3089 LMP Yale University New Haven, CT 06510 Dear Dr. Shaywitz: Congratulations on your new finding on “environmental influences” a source of dyslexia! This is an important breakthrough in the understanding of literacy problems facing our nation and its children. Some of my colleagues and I have been researching a new testing tool, the Miller Word Identification Assessment (MWIA), which quantifies a kind of disability which appears to be induced by non-phonetic teaching, particularly if applied before phonic decoding skills have been learned. It may be related to your work. The enclosed article describes the MWIA and some of our results. The MWIA gives unique insight into a student’s reading strategy, which cannot be learned via the usual word and non-word lists. We think it might be useful in selecting subjects for fMRI having extremes or freedom from, the particular environmental disability under study. Your study may also encounter a political minefield in their implications for the effects of “whole- language” teaching on a substantial cohort of our nation’s children. I pray you will “stick to your guns” as a nation needs all the scientific power it can muster to restore is vital human communications skills. Science is being applied to development of hardware and software, but not to the “liveware.” Best regards. Please keep up your good works. Very Truly Yours, Charles M. Richardson, P.E. cc. R. Sweet, D. S.Charney, E. Miller, G. Rodgers, D. Potter [Mr. Richardson attached the first page of the following paper by Shaywitz, et. al. ftp://www.dyslexia.com/pub/Research/shaywitz2.pdf] (No longer available 4/2/2020) TLC “Citizen Advocates for Quality Education” The LITERACY COUNCIL a 501 © 3 non-profit organization Charles M. Richardson, B.S., M.S. P.E., Founder & Chairman 1 Jefferson Ferry Dr, Ste. 5152, So. Setauket, NY 11720-4724 l631-650, FAX 2899, [email protected], www.TLC.LI August 28, 2003 The DYSLEXIA DEBATE: NATURE, NURTURE, or BOTH? This is written in response to, and in support of, “Neural Systems for Compensation and Persistency: Young Adult Outcome of Childhood Reading Disability,” by Sally E. Shaywitz, et. al., in the Journal of BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY, 2003: 54; 25-33. INTRODUCTION The Spring, 2003, issue of PERSPECTIVES (International Dyslexia Association) comes down squarely on the side of nature, that is the genetic neurologic etiology of whatever the educational profession chooses to call “dyslexia,” however described defined, or quantified, Period. While there is undeniable evidence that some humans have genetically traceable neurobiological anomalies which interfere with learning reading, mathematics, etc., this is to present evidence that there are other factors which lead to measurable conditions of reading disability which relate to students’ early exposure to the printed word, consistent with the Shaywitz team finding of “memory-based rather than analytic word identification strategies.” We find some person who appear to switch back and forth between two types of memory involved, and evidence of “environmental influences” with a negative effect on reading performance. “We” are Edward Miller of North Carolina, creator of the Miller Word Identification Assessment (MWIA), a new testing tool; this writer who has used the MWIA for circa ten years in New York; Donald Potter of Texas who began using the MWIA in 2002 (Update: as of January 2012, Mr. Potter has given over 400 MWIAs). We are profoundly indebted to Geraldine Rodgers of New Jersey whose incisive research has linked historical findings/events with evidence for there being “two types of readers” (Appendix II) above and beyond the much bemoaned innate dyslexic who requires individual muli-sensory tutoring to acquire a useful reading skill. Our concept of three types of readers is consistent with the findings of the Shaywitz team. Though we see evidence of mixed conditions in the young adults in the Shaywitz study, such do not taint the principal findings. We acknowledge with thanks the long-time support of Sam Blumenfeld who publicized in one of his 1993 “Education Letters” Miller’s early findings, and accompanied us on a visit to Haskins Laboratory to discuss the same with Messrs Liberman, Shankweiler, and Xu. 2 BACKGROUND As for “environmental influences,” on and off for 100 years the damage from early non- phonetic teaching has been fading in and out. Studies by Oskar Messer (Germany 1903), reported by E. B. Huey in The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, (U. S., 1908), and replicated by Myrtle Sholty (Chicago, 2011) showed that there are two different types of readers, the “objective” and the “subjective,” who read accurately from word parts, and the “subjective,” who read inaccurately from whole word and by conscious context guessing. Geraldine Rodgers’ 1977-1978 oral reading research demonstrated that the two types (or mixtures of same) result from differences in the way children were initially taught to read, by “sounds” or by “meaning” (sight words), or by mixtures of the two. In the Encyclopedia of Education in 1913, Dr. Henry Suzallo introduced a triangle with its corners labeled “print,” “sound,” and “meaning” to facilitate debate as to whether a reader should (or does) navigate the triangle directly from “print” to “meaning,” or the other way, from “print” through “sound” to “meaning.” Suzzallo’s triangle makes it obvious that the two routes to decoding print – by “meaning” or by “sound” – are contradictory. Therefore they cannot be used simultaneously, but only by switching back and forth, in effect, switching from clockwise to counter-clockwise on the triangle. Such flickering behavior is obviously disabling, and may be related to the left-right blood-flow observations. A scholarly and sensitive description of environmental effects was that of Dr. Samuel T. Orton in the Journal of Educational Psychology, February, 1929: “The ‘Sight Reading’ Method of Teaching Reading As a Source of Reading Disability.” He observed that pupils in a town where no children were given any reading training until he or she had learned ninety words by sight” exhibited twice the rate of disabilities as those in an otherwise similar town where phonics intervention occurred as soon as sight words were engendering difficulty. He further observed “effects of this unrecognized disability upon the personality and behavior of the child . conduct disorders and undesirable personality reactions which . appear to be entirely secondary to the reading defect and which improved markedly when special training was instituted to overcome the reading disability … even those who make a spontaneous adjustment without special training may never gain a facility … commensurate with their ability in other lines.” The issue of instructional damage (“Iatrogenic Reading Disorders”) from non-alphabetic teaching rated a few paragraphs in Dr. Hilde Mosse’s Complete Handbook of Children’s Reading Disorders (1980), and a one-paragraph mention in a 1993 pamphlet by the National Institute of Health. More detail added by Rodgers in The Hidden Story, (Author House, 1996), describing her 1977-1978 research with children in five languages. FUNCTIONAL IMAGING DATA QUESTIONS The exact form of the subjects’ responses were not described. I am curious as to whether they were oral or something other such as a push-button; if oral, were they graded/judged personally in real time or recorded for later evaluation? 3 Were the responses to the line judgment (L) task were less than 100% accurate, it is possible that subtle visual tracking or refractory problems were involved; or Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome (a.k.a. the Irlen Effect, Irlen Institute, Long Beach, CA)? Where our test data (to be described) record speed of word reading instead of reaction time, I found it interesting to covert the Shaywitz fMRI reaction-time to “speed of response” by taking the reaction-time reciprocals and shifting the values one decimal so that all could be plotted on the same scale with the proportion correct (accuracy) data (See Time Ù Speed conversions at the bottom of PLATE ONE, and cluster A.) All subjects are seen to be slower and less accurate on the NWR task where real decoding was involved, vis-à-vis the CAT task which used short, familiar words. Even the “non impaired” NI subjects suffered 14% in speed and 10% in accuracy vs. 11% and 15% respectively for AIR subjects and 9% and 21% for PPR subjects. Also Figure 1 shows blood-flow activity in the inferior occipital gyrus on both sides of the brain in all subjects, suggesting all have some mix of right and left-brain activity. The article does not include information on the early reading histories of the 43 subjects. It would be interesting to know which (if any) were given systematic phonic instruction in K-1 so that their left-brain linguistic word-recognition strategies would have developed early as a basis for all reading tasks. The National Reading Panel Report (December, 2000, to be discussed) underscores the differences in ultimate reading ability depending upon the sequence of phonetic vs. non-phonic instruction in early years of schooling. WORD PRONUNCIATION TASKS The (out-of-magnet) Word Pronunciation Task was described as pronunciation of high and low frequency words, with accuracy and reaction time being recorded. The data on page 29 gives accuracies but no reaction times. Even with high-frequency words, the highest accuracy recorded was 96%, which I as a tutor would deem less than satisfactory for functional 18 to 20 year olds! Four percent errors in reading scientific material would lead to frustrations.